Wild Distortion

   

J.D. Vance tried to prove a point but failed:

In a clip from an interview with the Daily wire's Michael Knowles, posted Tuesday to the social media platform X, Vice President J.D. Vance augmented that knowledge with the impressive insight that in today's world, even proressives and atheists worship their secular idols using christian forms.

In fact, Vance described that secular worship as "a disgusting butchering of the Nicene Creed." 

"One of the really interesting things about the secular, hyper-progressive, hyper-liberal age that we live in," the vice president said at the beginning of the clip, "is you realize how many of the rituals and institutions and practices of Catholicism show up in the modern world completely divorced from the God part and the grace part of  it."

Therein lies the key to Vance's argument- secular progressives have adopted Christian rituals divorced from God and grace. Hence the deceptive allure of that which they worship.

"So," he continued, "we're thankfully- thanks to Donald Trump, I would say- we're past the point where most people, at least that I see, hang out those hideous signs in their yard that say "in This House We Believe- blah blah blah blah blah- love is love, science is science, no person is illegal.'"

Indeed, those multi-colored, virtue-signaling political signs amounted to a blight on many residential neighborhoods earlier this decade.

"That sign," the vice president added, "is like, such a disgusting butchering of the Nicene Creed."

Vance then characterized that butchering as evidence that "people still have this desire to profess, to do it very publicly, and even to do it in this kind of cadence that you  see in the Nicene Creed, and of course they do it in this very politically motivated way."

He is such a dud. LOL https://t.co/8k4njY2Gjg

— Jumbo Elliott (@JumboElliott76) June 30, 2026

In all fairness, J.D. Vance isn't a dud. But in all accuracy, he's making this stuff up. The Nicene Creed was initially adopted by the First Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. and altered by the Second Ecumenical Council in 381. This was when Christianity was Christianity, not divided among Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestant, hence 1136 years before the start of the Protestant Reformation. The current iteration was approved in 2011 by a Roman Catholic group, the International Commission of English in the Liturgy.

The Nicene Creed is more commonly invoked in the Catholic mass than in Protestant worship service. However, in its current version it is accepted by virtually all Protestant denominations (of which there is a boatload) because it is a statement of the Christian faith, not peculiarly Catholic.

Vance maintains that the In This House We Believe sign utilizes a "kind of cadence that you see in the Nicene Creed." But the Creed begins only with "we believe," an unmistakably generic phrase. It does not begin with "In This _____ We Believe," as do the yard signs. "In This House We Believe" is eloquent and assertive, whatever the ensuing message. It's hard to believe that the signs are meant to be reminiscent of "rituals and institutions and practices of Catholicism." The cadence is not being copied.

The Vice President could have stated his disagreement with a) "Black Lives Matter"; b) "Women's Rights Are Human Rights"; c) "Science Is Real"' d) "Love Ia Love"; or e) "Kindness Is Everything". But his is a party whose fuhrer has said "I love the poorly educated," so respecting your supporters enough to explain your disagreement is prohibited. Instead, it is branded as "hideous.... virtue-signaling" and hatred of God.

Most of all, it probably was an effort by preppry "J.D." to prove his Roman Catholic bonafides. He believes he needs to do that on the chance that he'll have to run in the 2028 Republican presidential primaries rather than simply being elevated to the presidency upon invocationof the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.

Share |

Listening to What Is Said Publically

The President of the USA may not have been lying when

Mr. Trump said in a post on social media on Tuesday that Iran had “fully and completely agreed to the highest level Nuclear inspections,” adding that Iranian officials who claimed otherwise were making false statements. “If they did not agree to this, there would be no further negotiations!” he added.

The comments came hours after Esmail Baghaei, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman, responded with a flat “no” when asked if Tehran, in the latest round of peace talks, had agreed to permit inspectors from the United Nations to access its war-damaged nuclear sites. Mr. Baghaei told a news conference in Tehran that the two sides had not discussed nuclear issues in any detail, according to Iranian state media.

There also are other differences of opinion on what the agreement which, as described here, establishes "an immediate and permanent end to military operations while opening a sixty-day window to negotiate a final agreement. The sixty-day limit governs the initial negotiation period, not the duration of the ceasefire." 

Additionally, President Trump has contended that any Iranian assets unfrozen as a result of the "understanding" must be used to but agricultrual equipment or medical supplies, while Tehran argues "Iran is the only country who decides what to do with those assets."  Trump says the Strait of Hormuz will remain completely open but Iran insists it will maintain control of the Strait and it "will never return to its pre-war conditions."

 

One side may be lying. Or both sides may be; this is, after all, Iran and Donald Trump's government, neither of which has any credibilty. However, alternatively, the Vance team may be given assurances, or more likely indications, in private of improved Iranian behavior which don't appear in writing.

In such matters, it is wise to consider the words of Kian Tajbakhsh, a dual Iranian and American citizen detained with five other Iranian-Americans, all released in January of 2016 as part of the JCPOA negotiated by the Obama Administration with Tehran. Nevertheless, Tajbakhash has criticized that nuclear deal and supported President Trump's war of choice against Iran. He has been a professor in the USA in both urban planning and foreign affairs.

Tajbakhsh has periodically appeared on Abby Phillip's CNN NewsNight this year and on June 18 explained 

Unfortunately, they, you know, there's a kind of misunderstanding of how things work in the Middle East, in the Middle East.  In the Middle East, what people say to you in private in English is usually irrelevant and meaningless.  It's only- it's only what they will say in their own language publicly that actually counts.  So it's actually the opposite of the U.S., you know.  

I don't want to insult any politicians here but politicians in the, you know, well, you know, politicians will actually say the truth only in public but in private, they'll say whatever you want to hear. So until we actually see what the terms are and how these negotiations go forward, on the face of it, I, you know, first of all, I wouldn't trust those backchannels and those, those commitments.  We'll have to see what they are on paper because that kind of vagueness is exactly where Iran is an expert at, basically using ambiguity for their own purposes. 

That's a little reminiscent of Donald Trump's game.  Donald, a talented former actor, has charmed Bill Maher, Anthony Scaramucci, and others when he has been in private with them. But that's the opposite of most American politicians who are typically more straightforward in private than in public. If Tajbakshsh is correct- as he probably is- it turns out that Iranian leaders are substantially the opposite. In private, they will tell you what you want to hear while being more revealing in public. 

We cannot know for sure whether President Trump and Vice President Vance understand this but know it's advantageous to claim the preliminary agreement is far more advantageous than it is. So they're either lying or being fleeced. Either way, this does not end well.

Share |

Malingn Influence Almost Beyond Human Comprehension

Democrat Rafael Warnock of Georgia is a great Senator but he's wrong about the last thing he says here:

Raphael Warnock: “JD Vance is perhaps the most craven politician in the American landscape. Here’s a man who called Donald Trump America’s Hitler. He’s just deeply craven. It’s hard to know really what his moral center is. In some ways he’s scarier than Donald Trump” pic.twitter.com/ehLHnsdOqo

— Marco Foster (@MarcoFoster_) June 14, 2026

It's hard to determine who the most craven politician is in the American landscape because Vance has a lot of competition in that area. However, the Vice President is not scarier than Donald Trump- and Vance himself is evidence of that.

As noted here, in 2016 J.D. Vance "wrote to his former law school roommate Josh McLaurin, 'I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical a**hole like Nixon who wouldn't be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he's America's Hitler. How's that for discouraging?'"   On two consecutive nights in March of 2016, DonaldTrump insulted the wife of Senator Ted Cruz. On the second occasion, Trump "retweeted a post showing a side by side image of Heidi Cruz and Trump's wife, Melania. Text on the picture read. 'No need to spill the beans.' The images ae worth a thousand words.'" (The photo was of Heidi appearing extremely unpleasant.) In that same campaign, candidate Trump called rival Marco Rubio, then a Florida senator, "Little Marco", "Mr. Meltdown", and "lightweight choker".

Now, all three are so up Donald Trump's rear end that only their ankles are visible. Nor has the President lost his touch.

Stephen A Smith on CNN: "The president is certainly an upgrade from what we were seeing from Joe Biden in terms of his alertness and what have you" pic.twitter.com/L9yaQKqPf0

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 14, 2026

This was nothing compared to the embrace the likes of Rubio, Cruz, and Vance have given Donald. The response from "Stephen A" to CNN's Kasie Hunt included some criticism of Trump. After Smith, a well-known New York Knicks fan, criticized Trump for having attended the third game of the NBA championship series between the Knicks and the San Antonio Spurs, Trump responded on Untruth Social with

Stephen A. Smith is an arrogant fool, a low IQ individual. In other words, he’s 'dumb as a rock,' and totally unqualified to ever think of running for high political office, or even low political office, for that matter! He’d get annihilated in a debate by the most incompetent of politicians. Joe Biden’s now 'fabled' performance would look great by comparison to anything that this loudmouth huckster has to offer, which isn’t much! Within a few weeks, they’d laugh him out of politics!!!"

And then Smith decided he could pacify Trump by claiming "the President is certainly an upgrade from what we were seeing from Joe Biden in terms of his alertness and what have you". Trump evidently falls asleep periodically during official events, which speaks of his alertness. We would know more about the President's health, were any medical records released. They have not been, and that's by design. 

One wonders: how would SAS have responded had any other public official referred to him as "an arrogant fool, a low IQ individual," and "dumb as a rock"?  Any one with any self-respect- and Smith has more self-respect than almost anyone alive- would have condemned the individual who assailed him.

But this was Donald Trump rudely and obnoxiously condemning an individual. And Smith did what so many others have done when falsely denounced by Donald J. Trump- fold. No other public official has so often humiliated others and profited by it. Trump gets away with it, as no one else has, can, or will. His sway over people, almost demonic, is incomparable. 

And that is why Senator/Reverend Warnock is wrong, uncharacteristically, when he suggests that anyone is scarier than Donald J. Trump.

Share |

Release the Records

He has me confused. Is Eric Erickson stupid, naive, or dishonest?  Erickson says

The New York Times pushed out a story just the other day after Renee Good got killed by the ICE agent, a multi-angled camera view to insist it did not look like the ICE agent got hit.... CNN echoed The New York Times, claiming that it did not appear that he got hit.

We now have the medical records of the ICE agent. I believe his name is Jonathan Ross- internal bleeding in his hip area from the impact of the 3,000+ pound car hitting him. He was hit by Renee Good.

 

The New York Times pushed out a multi-angle camera view claiming Renee Good did not hit the ICE agent. But now we have the agent’s medical records.

She did hit him. Where is the apology? pic.twitter.com/x1nnN6pGB7

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) January 14, 2026

CBS Newson on Wednesday reported 

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent who fatally shot Renee Good last week in Minneapolis, Jonathan Ross, suffered internal bleeding to the torso following the incident, according to two U.S. officials briefed on his medical condition.

It was unclear how extensive the bleeding was. The Department of Homeland Security confirmed Ross' injury, but has not yet responded to CBS News' requests for more information. This story will be updated as we learn more.

Videos from the scene showed Ross walking away after the incident.

Ross has not returned to work, one source said, but did not say why.

Kristi Noem, the Homeland Security secretary, previously acknowledged that Ross was taken to the hospital after the shooting and was released the same day. She said he was recovering from his injuries, describing him as an experienced law enforcement officer who believed he was defending himself and fellow agents.

Not only is it unclear how extensive the bleeding was, it is unclear whether the injury was more extensive than a common, everyday household injury. As described by the Cleveland Clinic, this sounds a lot like internal bleeding:

“Ecchymosis” (pronounced “eh-chuh-mow-sis”) is the medical term for a bruise. A bruise, or contusion, is skin discoloration from damaged, leaking blood vessels underneath your skin. Even though there’s blood pooling underneath your skin, you won’t have any external bleeding unless your skin breaks open.

We don't know whether Ross was severely injured. However, we do know that "internal bleeding" can be no more serious than a bruise and that we cannot take remarks by anyone in this Administration about this incident as the gospel truth.

Soon after the shooting, Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem called Renee Good a"domestic terrorist."  She was not. 

Vice President J.D. Vance called the victim a "deranged leftist." There is no evidence that she was deranged or in any way mentally or psychologically deficient. 

President Trump almost instantly after the killing remarked that "the woman" was "very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE officer. She did not. (Good was leaving the scene when she eviently was shot three times and clearly did not "willfully and viciously" run anyone over.)

This Administration's record on the killing of Renee Good alread has been one of division and deceit, lying profusely to justify its inhumane and destructive policy toward both immigration and protestors. Nonetheless, we'll be able to determine definitively, hopefully, the extent  of Agent Jonathan Ross' injury once his medical report is released. That may be released simultaneously with the release of the alleged shooting of presidential candidate Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania in July, 2024 or release of the full Epstein files. When pigs fly.

Share |

Dead Men Tell No Tales

Not true, Mr. Musk and  Mr. Virginia state legislator.

 

True https://t.co/ipD1kyQefl

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 9, 2026

In his press briefing on Thursday, Vice President J.D. Vance condemned "many people in the corporate media" for their coverage and added

And I say "attack" ver, very intentionally because this was an attack on federal law enforcement. This was an attack on law and order," Vance continued. "this was an attack on the American people."

Vance said the CNN headline also left out that the woman was there to "interfere with a lefitimate law enforcement operation in the United States of America" and is "part of a broader left-wing network" that attacks ICE officers and prevents them from doing their jobs.

"If the media wants to tell the truth, they ought to tell the truth, that a group of left-wing radicals have been working tirelessly, sometimes using domestic terror techniques, to try to amke it impossible for the President of the United States to do what the American people elcted him to do, which is enforce our immigration laws," Vance said.

 

 So Vance (presumably) believes Good's misbehavior "was an attack on law and order.... and on the American people." She was allegedly part of "a group of left-wing radicals (who) have been... using domestic terror techniques to try to make it impossible for the President of the United States to do what the American people elected him to do." Previously, he had stated "the reason this woman is dead is because she tried to ram somebody with her car."

Good may have been interfering with a law enfocement operation. However, once she began to pull away, she was removing herself from the situation. That did not satisfy, or even please, Officer Jonathan Ross. But in the Vice President's telling, Renee Good was a left-wing radical who attacked law and order with domestic terror techniques to obstruct the will of our President and of the American people and specifically tried to ram somebody with her car. 

She factually was not a domestic terrorist and Vance probably was aware that video would prove that she did not try to ram somebody. But, aware of the political difficulty that would ensue, he did not wish her dead. Oh, that makes so much sense.

Also not wishing her dead was the President himself. Yet,  in a Truth Social post of 3:28 p.m. on Pearl Harbor Day, Donald wrote/typed/dictated

I have just viewed the clip of the event which took place in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It is a horrible thing to watch. The woman screaming was, obviously, a professional agitator, and the woman driving the car was very disorderly, obstructing and reisisting, who then violently, willfull, and viciously ran over the iCE officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense....

Let me see if  I understand this correctly. "No one of the right  wishes that person were dead." The leader of the right, Donald J. Trump,illegally orders boats, probably carrying drugs to Trinidad or Europe, blown up along with the occupants.  the leader of the right, He (presumably) believes that the ICE officer, in order to prevent being injured or  killed, shot a professional agitator who was very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, then trying to run over the officer.

If Trump did in fact view the "clip" of the killing, he would know that the Good woman did not try to run the woman over, which would prove very inconvenient for the Administration once it was widely seen. She was a dangerous radical but he's sorr she's decesdl. But he did not wish the Good woman dead, even though if he did watch the clip he claims to have watched, he  would know that big trouble awaited- if she had lived.

President Trump and Vice President Vance may not be glad that Renee Good is dead.  Call them "relieved."

Share |

J.D. Vance, Again Feigning Ignorance

A podcaster who is running for the US House of Representatives from Missouri is right about immigrants and investors and wrong about a remark being complete nonsense.

This is complete bullshit. Immigrants aren’t buying houses. Investors are. They are admitting it quarterly. https://t.co/0EuTJKJ9mq

— Fred Wellman (@FPWellman) November 14, 2025

The Cato Institute, which is as a libertarian organization is wrong about almost everything

On the blog of the Cato Institute, as a libertarian organization wrong about almost everything, points out

As a libertarian organization, the Cato Institute is wrong about almost everything. However, one of its bloggers notes that a disproportionate percentage of immigrants works in the construction industry but

all immigrants demand housing. Even immigrants who work in construction increase housing demand first before they can construct more housing. That increase in demand drives up prices and incentivizes new supply through further construction, renovation, or increasing the supply of rental units through other means. However, the marginal immigrant increases housing demand more than he increases housing supply.

Thus, immigrants do place some upward pressure on housing prices. However, the tweeter without a first name is correct:

         

a) Blackstone & other groups that are gobbling up all the housing inventory, to perpetually rent out;
b) AIRBNB;
c) legal immigration from high net-worth folks who buy, often cash.

The illegal imm working as a landscaper is not outbidding… https://t.co/CeNOYaAVlO

— A.J. Delgado (@AJDelgado13) November 14, 2025

These, and several other, are the reasons for our chronic shortage of housing. Please inform J.D. Vance. 

JD Vance: "A lot of young people are saying housing is way too expensive. Why is that? Because we flooded the country with 30 million illegal immigrants who were taking houses that ought by right go to American citizens." pic.twitter.com/3zWrklTNR8

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 13, 2025

Name-checking Springfield, Ohio, Vance argued also during the presidential campaign that the demand for housing by illegal immigrants is pushing upward the cost of homes. Nobody asked him how those individuals without a Social Security card were able to obtain a home mortgage loan. Nor is it likely they'd be able to pay for a house with cash, no matter how much they were saving on food bills in Springfield with their cat-focused diet.

Share |

Working Hard For a Nomination Which is Trump's to Lose

No one can know for sure what motivates the twisted mind of J.D. Vance. But the legendary pitcher Satchel Paige offered a clue: "Don't look back. Something might be gaining on you."

Eager as usual to stir the pot, President Trump, as he spoke to reporters on Air Force One, implied that either Vice President Vance or Secretary of State Marco Rubio could succeed him. He teased "I'm not sure if anybody would run against those two. I think if they formed a group it would be unstoppable."

If he is still alive in the summer of 2028, Trump either will be the presidential nominee or the vice presidential nominee with the understanding that if elected, the other guy would resign after the inauguration in 2029. Still, Vance is not taking any chances and referred to Rubio as his "best friend in the administration."

And why not?

During the last presidential campaign, Vance responded to concern about the impact of illegal immigrants (or asylum seekers) on Springfield, Ohio by tweeting/Xing "reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who should not be in this country."  After - not before- five or six or 33 bomb threats and claim debunked, Vance was interviewed by CNN;s Dana Bash and rationalized

The American media totally ignored this stuff until Donald Trump and I started talking about cat memes. If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that's what I'm going to do.

Proud to be a liar, Vance settled into this modus operandi. Vance made up the story about Haitian immigrants eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio, then boasted about having made it up, and now is repeating the myth. Wash, rinse, repeat.

On the October 29, 2025 edition of Pod Force One with the New York Post's Miranda Devine:

A disgusting human being. https://t.co/K8aqbGXqgj

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) October 30, 2025

Disgusting, for sure. However, the Vice President hears footsteps. No doubt he took on the role of running mate to the presidential nominee, as most offered the position do, in order to be positioned to be heir apparent to the President if the ticket is victorious. And now, Trump mentions Marco Rubio and Vance in the same breath, even though the vice-president is clearly more MAGA than the neocon Rubio.

Vance has the inside track on the Secretary of State for a few reasons, including what seems to be an effective effort to shore up his Christian bona fides. Moreover, Trump may recall that President Obama supported Secretary of State Clinton over Vice President Biden for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, and Clinton went on to lose to Trump. Four years later, Biden defeated Trump, though the circumstances of both elections were far different than they have been since. (It's also likely that Biden would have lost to Trump in 2016 and Clinton would have beaten him in 2020. So it's a weak precedent, but precedent.)

On an unrelated matter, suitable for Mischief Night: it was exactly three years ago that our twice-elected President typed

                    

And that makes it three years to the day that the far and away most consequential public figure of any sort of our time called his, and our, country "evil."  At some time, in some faraway land, a Democrat may notice.

Share |

A Real Interview

Snowflakes.

If the Vice President is asked a question and does not answer that question, is it okay to keep asking him that question? Is that "rude" now? pic.twitter.com/Ql08DzcnTF

— Jane Coaston 🏔️ (@janecoaston) October 12, 2025

Here is another pro-Trump (much more so, actually) individual whose feelings were hurt because a reporter asked Donald's vice-president a couple of follow-up questions:

 

Stephanopoulos responds by defaming Homan again and then cutting Vance off completely.

ABC News needs to fire Stephanopoulos.pic.twitter.com/a7Gl1C2iFw

— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) October 12, 2025

On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the host began the Homan segment (host's question in italics; Vice President's words in bold)  by asking the Vice President "The White House border czar, Tom Homan, was recorded on an FBI surveillance tape in September, 2024 accepting $50,000 in cash. Did he keep that money or give it back?" 

Vance said "Tom Homan did not take a bribe. It's a ridiculous smear." but didn't answer the question, whereupon the host responded "But wait, you said he didn't take a bribe. but I'm not sure you answered the question. Are you saying that he did not accept the $50,000?" Vance replied

George, this story has been covered ad nauseam. He did not take a bribe. Did he accept $50,000? I am sure that in the course of Tom Homan's life he has bee paid more than $50,000 for services. the question is, did he do something illegal, and there is absolutely no evidence that Tom Homan has ever taken a bribe or done anything illegal.

No, that is not the question. The question is what happened to the money. Vance goes to the matter of legality because the Department of Justice dropped the case, which it may have done simply because Homan- then a private citizen- was at the time unable to provide service. And as of now, the video has not been released by Kash Patel's FBI or Donald Trump's personal Department of Justice, though refusal may run afoul of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 

Dissatisfied with Vance's bobbing and weaving, Stephanopoulos notes "No, I'm asking- I'm asking a different question, I'm asking you did he accept-" and a moment later, "I'm asking you, did he accept the $50,000 that was caught on the surveillance tape? Did he accept that $50,000 or not?" Vance asked

Accepting $50,000 for doing what, George? I am not even sure I understand the question. Is it illegal to take a payment for doing services? The FBI has not prosecuted him. I have never seen any evidence that he's engaged in criminal wrongdoing. Nobody has accused Tom of violating a crime, even the far-left media like yourself. So I'm actually not sure what the precise question is. Did he accept $50,000? Honestly, George, I don't know the answer to that question. What I do know is that he didn't violate a crime.

Ever persistent, Stephanopoulos asked "So you don't- what was caught on the tape, you're saying right now, you don't know whether or  not he kept that money?" Vance maintained

I don't know what tape you're referring to, George. I saw media reports that Tom Homan accepted a bribe. There is no evidence of that. And here's, George, why fewer and fewer people watch your program and why you're losing credibility, because you're talking for now five minutes with the vice president of the United States about this story regarding Tom Homan, a story that I have read about, but I don't even know the video that you're talking about.

The Vice President comments "and here's, George, why fewer and fewer people watch your program and why you're losing credibility."  Meghan McCain doesn't find that rude. Vance continues

Meanwhile, low-income women can't get food because the Democrats and Chuck Schumer have shut down the government. Right now, we're trying to figure out how to pay our troops because Chuck Schumer has shut down the government. You're focused on a bogus story, you're insinuating criminal wrongdoing against a guy who has done nothing wrong, instead of focusing on the fact that our country is struggling because our government shut down.

The GOP controls the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives but it's the Democrats who are powerful enough to shut down the government. If so, that would be one heck of a weak President. 

Stephanopoulos was insinuating nothing. He merely was stating a fact. By obvious contrast, Vance was characterizing Homan as "a guy who has done nothing wrong." However, he never answered whether Homan had kept the money- or even whether he had taken the cash, only giving his opinion that Homan had done nothing wrong. Continuing to duck the question, the Vice President remarks

Let's talk about the real issues, George. I think the American people would benefit much more from that than from you going down some weird left-wing rabbit hole where the facts clearly show that Tom Homan didn't engage in any criminal wrongdoing.

It's possible that Homan, who at the time was in no position to do anything for the money, did not break a federal law. However, we still don't know whatever became of the payoff- uh, er, gift.

Shockingly- because this sort of thing is rarely done on network news or cable news- Stephanopoulos proceeded to defend himself, and facts. The interview ended with:

STEPHANOPOULOS: It's not a weird left-wing rabbit hole. I didn't insinuate anything. I asked you whether Tom Homan accepted $50,000 as was heard on an audiotape recorded by the FBI in September 2024, and you did not answer the question.

Thank you for your time this morning.

VANCE: No, George, I said that I don't --

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: -- is up next.

We'll be right back.

It's not a weird left-wing rabbit hole, Stephanopoulos didn't insinuate anything, Homan does appear to have accepted a $50,000 bribe (legally or otherwise), and J.D. Vance did not answer the question. The host ended the interview as it emerged that the only rabbit hole was plumbing for J.D. Vance's honesty or integrity.

This is how journalism is supposed to be done.  The interviewer asked a plain, simple question three times, each time the interviewee was given a chance to answer that question. He did not. George Stephanopoulos himself committed what is evidently a crime nowadays: he asked more than one follow-up question and when it didn't get answered, pointed out that it wasn't. 

Along with everything else loathsome, conservatives have turned so utterly sensitive during the Trump era. Their feelings are hurt, even when no accusation is actually made beyond what is in the public record. George Stephanopoulos did not call antagonists "vermin" and "enemies from within,"  suggested they be prosecuted, or call for a prominent General to be executed.. Worse: he has accused an interviewee of not answering a question. Lock him up!

Share |

Kimmel in Context

As we all know

ABC has pulled late-night host Jimmy Kimmel off air indefinitely over comments he made about the shooting of right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk.

"Jimmy Kimmel Live will be pre-empted indefinitely," a spokesperson for the Disney-owned network said in a statement to the BBC.

In his Monday night monologue, Kimmel said the "MAGA gang" was trying to score political points off Kirk's killing.

On Tuesday, a 22-year-old suspect appeared in court charged with aggravated murder over last Wednesday's shooting of the 31-year-old conservative activist. Representatives for Kimmel did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Kimmel said on Monday: "The Maga Gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it."

Kimmel was making two assertions: 1) the "kid who murdered Charlie Kirk is "one of them," the "Maga Gang"; and 2) the MAGA Gang is "doing everything they can to score political points from it."

The talk-show host was wrong about the first. As of late Monday when he made his remark, we knew only that alleged murderer Tyler Robinson hated Charlie Kirk, which was rather obvious from the start. Since then, we have learned that Robinson was incensed at the "hate" he believed the victim was spreading and, very likely, had become more keen on gay and transgender rights, which would have put him very much in odds with Kirk.

Jimmy Kimmel wasn't alone in being wrong about Charlie Kirk's assassin, and the evidence points to his accuracy in the contention that the far right is "doing everything they can to score political points from it." As The Guardian reports

Trump allies have sought to link Kirk’s killing – without evidence – to what they say is a coordinated leftwing “terror” movement that supports political violence, funded by progressive and liberal charities. This has led to fears of a draconian crackdown on free speech. 

One of them is the junior Senator from the state of Kansas:

This is ridiculous hyperbolic BS. Irresponsible https://t.co/VN2RXabPB7

— Jumbo Elliott (@JumboElliott76) September 19, 2025

Don't wait for the evidence- blame it on the left:

JD is disgusting. Lone wolf shooter. He's using it/making it political https://t.co/itimE6Cs5P

— Jumbo Elliott (@JumboElliott76) September 18, 2025

Prior to that, the actual Vice President of the USA, not a talk show host, had

guest-hosted Kirk’s podcast on Monday and said that people who “see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder” should “call them out”. He added: “Hell, call their employer. We don’t believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility, and there is no civility in the celebration of political assassination.”

Monkey say, monkey do. From the Oval Office only a few hours after Kirk was killed, President Trump issued a video message in which he alleged

Radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives. Tonight, I ask all Americans to commit themselves tot he American values for which Charlie Kirk lived and died.

The body was barely cold and we didn't know who the assailant was- let alone his motive- and Donald already had declared that the "radical left" had committed the murder. And in his response to the murder of Kirk and erasing any thought of Donald, House Speaker Mike Johnson stated on Fox News Sunday

People have got to stop framing simple policy disagreements in terms of existential threats to our democracy. You can't call the other side fascists and enemies of the state and not understand that there are some deranged people in our society who will take that as cues to act.

Donald Trump has called the press the "enemy of the people"' called Kamala Harris during the last presidential campaign a "fascist;" and his political enemies "communists, Marxists, fascists" and "radical left thugs that live like vermin."  (Certainly nothing that will encourage "deranged people" to act out their grievances.)

So blaming the left for the assassination of the famous podcaster and activist is not only dangerous in itself, but is coupled with an effort by Donald Trump, daddy to Republican officials, to erase and rewrite history. Oh, but Jimmy Kimmel inaccurately implied that Tyler Robinson was a supporter of the MAGA movement and must be cancelled.

Share |

As the British Would Say, "Rubbish"

Former Ohio senator and current Vice President and master of irony:

JD Vance on Russia-Ukraine: "What I admire about the president is he's not trying to focus on every nitpicky detail of how this thing started three and a half year ago, he's trying to focus on the nitpicky details of now." pic.twitter.com/UCXG63U317

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 24, 2025

Focusing on a nitpicky detail of how the thing started three and a half years ago is exactly what Donald Trump has done. He always has blamed Ukraine, invaded from the east, for starting the war with Russia. As President, on February 18 he told reporters at Mar-a-Lago of Volodymyr Zelensky "You should have never started it. You could have made a deal." At the White House on April 14, he stated "you don't start a war against someone 20 times your size and then hope that people give you some missiles."   And speaking on Fox and Friends the day after the August 19 summit with European leaders, he argued 

Russia is a powerful military nation. You know, whether people like it or not, it's a powerful nation. It's a much bigger nation. It's not a war that should have been started. You don't do that. You don't take on a nation that's 10 times your size.

Donald Trump likes and admires Vladimir Putin. Putin projects strength, as does the American President.  However, unlike Trump, the Russian President is in total control of his country, a goal Trump obviously has set for himself.

And wealthy, perhaps the fourth richest individual in the world. Although we don't know the source of his wealth

The Russian president is worth up to $200 billion, according to financier Bill Browder. Once the largest foreign investor in Russia, Browder testified in 2017 that Putin's wealth was amassed after the Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky was jailed in 2003 for fraud and tax evasion.

"After Khodorkovsky's conviction, the other oligarchs went to Putin and asked him what they needed to do to avoid sitting in the same cage as Khodorkovsky," Browder told the US Senate Judiciary Committee. "From what followed, it appeared that Putin's answer was, '50%.'"

That $200 billion estimate would make Putin one of the richest people in the world, behind Elon Musk and Amazon boss Jeff Bezos, and above Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Putin is often photographed wearing "high-end luxury watches" that retail "for multiple times his supposed annual income", said Fortune. He is also rumoured to be the owner of numerous homes and hundreds of cars, as well as dozens of aircraft and helicopters.

His "lavish lifestyle" is regularly "on display" said the UK Foreign Office in 2022, after the war with Ukraine broke out and the new sanctions on Russia were announced.

That's very important. As former Trump national security advisor John Bolton has explained, "if Trump believes that he has friendly relations with someone, you know, like Vladimir Putin, then relations between the two countries will be much better."

As a consequence, Trump

has made a habit of blurring the boundary between domestic policy grievances and foreign policy goals. He is uniquely vulnerable to manipulation, critics say, because he views national and international affairs through a single prism of self-interest. 

And so the American President has embraced Vladimir Putin and the latter's argument and rhetoric, which makes it less likely that an outcome critical to the security of Ukraine and the European continent will be achieved. That's hardly the stuff of "nitpicky details."

 

Share |

Scott Jennings Finally Disagrees With Donald Trump

As Mediaite recounts

A CNN panel exploded on Thursday after one guest claimed President Donald Trump “supposedly got shot,” leading to Scott Jennings demanding an immediate correction.

On CNN NewsNight, Abby Phillip had to wrangle control of her panel after podcaster Touré exclaimed that Trump “supposedly” was shot in July 2024 in Butler, Pennsylvania. The comment came during a discussion about the president’s health.

Adrienne Elrod, a former campaign spokesperson for former Vice President Kamala Harris, accused the White House of having “not always been forthcoming” about the current president’s health following White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addressing Trump’s bruised hands, chalking it up to “minor soft tissue irritation from frequent handshaking, and the use of aspirin” after reading a note from the president’s physician.

Elrod also brought up the point that Trump appeared to forget that he appointed Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.

Daring to be politically incorrect

“He supposedly got shot in the ear. We never heard from his doctors about that,” Touré added, immediately setting off Jennings, a senior CNN correspondent, and conservative pundit Ben Ferguson.

“Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Did you say supposedly?” Jennings asked, then pointing to the podcaster next to him and saying, “Abby, Abby,” to the panel’s anchor.

“If y’all stop screaming at the table, maybe I can actually respond,” Phillip said over the crosstalk.

“Supposedly,” Jennings said in frustration.

“Supposedly. That’s where we’re at now,” Ferguson added. “Touré, he was shot in the ear.”

Supposedly. That's where we're at now. Toure, he was shot in the ear.

Don't blame Toure, who said merely "supposedly." Instead, blame the only two individuals who have de facto stated that candidate Trump was not struck in the ear by a bullet. Objective yet sentient, Phillip continued as if she were a professional mediator and

“Hold on a second!” Phillip said. “Touré, he was shot in the ear.”

“But did we hear from the doctors? We would always hear from his doctors when he gets shot?” Touré asked.

“Did we hear from his doctors?” Phillip then asked Jennings.

“I mean, all I know is I went to the Republican National Commission and he had a bandage on his ear,” Jennings answered.

“That would be a no,” Touré said.

That indeed would be a "no" but

“He had blood on his face! Where did it come from?” Jennings asked.

Phillip cut through crosstalk yet again and got things back on track.

“This is not really what we’re talking about because the one of the reasons he released this information is because there were photos of his swelling. There were photos of his hand. They kind of had to say something at some point,” she said. “And look, it’s a benign — hold on — it’s benign condition. He is fine. It’s just a function, frankly, of being an older person.”

"Where it did come from,"  asked Jennings. Without the medical report, we don't know.  It may have come from Trump hitting his head, as he was going down, on the pistol of one of the Secret Service agents. It may have come from Trump scraping his ear against the ground. There may have been another source.

There is no reason to doubt, however, that Trump still takes a baby aspirin prescribed for him years ago. Aspirin is a powerful anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic non-prescription drug. In the latter role, it helps prevent blood clots and in so doing, makes it very likely that a patient will suffer bleeding episodes.

And yet Donald Trump was hit by a bullet and had the presence of mind to yell "Fight! Fight!" It may have happened that way- but two prominent individuals see it otherwise.

On June 6, Vice President Vance stated "I mean, think about it. It's a guy who, not even a year ago nearly took a bullet in the process of campaigning. Went back on the horse the next day." Nearly took a bullet.

JD Vance said Trump “nearly took a bullet” at his Butler rally.

Why did he say “nearly?” pic.twitter.com/Is0eJ4r0X4

— PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 (@patriottakes) July 13, 2025

It was only 35 later that his boss would confirm Vance's assessment.  The President told Fox News' Dean Cain "The people that are shooters- not so much, but people that, who are shooters, say "it's almost impossible that that was a miss". And it was a hit (pointing to his ear) but it was a miss."

President @realdonaldtrump was saved in Butler, PA by the Grace of God: “I was really saved by somebody very special…. people that are shooters say it is almost impossible that was a miss." pic.twitter.com/rugD5RODCh

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) July 11, 2025

Almost impossible that that was a miss- but not quite impossible. The President and the Vice President admit that Donald Trump was not hit. Yet, supposedly! supposedly! Jennings and Ferguson should take up their disagreement with Trump himself., the man who slipped and let be known that which is blasphemous for anyone else to suggest even is possible.

Share |

Agreement on Deception

They're saying the quiet parts out loud but it doesn't even matter.

In early June, Vice President James David Vance sat for an interview with what PBS described as "''manosphere' comedian Theo Von, who last month joked about snorting drugs off a mixed-race baby and the sexuality of men in the U.S. Navy when he opened for Trump at a military base in Qatar."  Somehow, PBS omitted what should be a rather curious- and is damning remark- made by the Veep. Fortunately, Raw Story reported

Referring to Trump, Vance said, "I mean, think about it. It’s a guy who, not even a year ago nearly took a bullet in the process of campaigning. Went back on the horse the next day."

He continued:

"And if you look, obviously I’m biased, but you look at what we’ve done on the border, you look at what we’ve done with trade, fighting back against a generation of theft of the American Dream, which is what the president’s trade policies are starting to do. I just think you’ve gotta have some respect for him and say, ‘Look, we don’t have to agree on every issue.’ I’m talking about if you’re Elon Musk. We don’t have to agree on every issue. But is this war actually in the interest of the country? I don’t think so."

Raw Story is not The New York Times or the Congressional Record. However

JD Vance said Trump “nearly took a bullet” at his Butler rally.

Why did he say “nearly?” pic.twitter.com/Is0eJ4r0X4

— PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 (@patriottakes) July 13, 2025

Vance made his de facto admission in the interview taped on June 6, 2025. Thirty-five days later, President Donald Trump in a Fox News journ- well, person, anyway- would make the same admission.

President @realdonaldtrump was saved in Butler, PA by the Grace of God: “I was really saved by somebody very special…. people that are shooters say it is almost impossible that was a miss." pic.twitter.com/rugD5RODCh

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) July 11, 2025

Unlike Vance, Trump is quick on his feet and has a little self-awareness. When he conceded "the people that are shooters... say "it's almost impossible that that was a miss," he quickly reversed himself- sort of-and added "and it was a hit but it was a miss."

Now that the Vice President and the President have unmistakably acknowledged that Donald Trump was not hit by a bullet on July 13, 2025, the media will- oh, who's kidding whom? This is analogous to Trump once bragging that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes. His Administration is making it clear that his camp lied when it claimed that he was shot in Butler, Pa Yet, the media persist in taking as gospel the nearly impossible, that Trump's ear was struck by a bullet traveling at 3200 feet per second and in a few days exhibited no scratch or scar. 

And all that without Donald Trump, who always demands to be the center of attention, authorizing release of a medical report. This is a media which at arguably its most important moment, is failing the public miserably.

 

Share |

Blaming Zelenskyy

One of the Republican Party's chief snowflakes is at it again.

🚨JD Vance goes BEAST-MODE on Zelenskyy trying to sabotage a Trump Peace deal:

“His country wouldn’t exist without the generosity of the United States of America. Say thank you. It’s stupid. Badmouthing Trump in public will not change his mind. Zelenskyy needs better consultants pic.twitter.com/96yzVIYKYn

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) February 20, 2025

 "'Badmouthing' the President of the United States?"  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy let Donald Trump off easy. As The Hill recounts

A testy back-and-forth has quickly escalated after Ukraine was left out of talks between U.S. and Russian officials in Saudi Arabia earlier this week, drawing a rebuke from Zelensky.

Trump responded Tuesday with unfounded allegations that Zelensky “started” the war, with the Ukrainian leader responding Wednesday that the U.S. president was living in a “web of disinformation.” Trump sent his angry Truth Social post hours later.

This exchange came with the backdrop of disagreement when recently

Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special representative for Ukraine and Russia, said in an interview that the United States would like to see elections in Ukraine, possibly by the end of the year, following a potential cease-fire agreement: “Most democratic nations have elections in their time of war. I think it is important they do so...

As discussed elsewhere, the prohibition of wartime elections is established in Ukraine’s statutory law. Ukraine’s Constitution does not explicitly address the issue of wartime elections, except for Article 83(4) that provides for the extension of the Parliament’s powers until the day of the first meeting of the first session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (the Ukrainian Parliament), elected after the termination of martial law or state of emergency. Nothing similar is made with respect to the president. According to one of the drafters of the Constitution, this special treatment of Parliament was originally aimed to enhance Parliament’s standing in the constellation of powers and prevent possible abuses during wartime or national emergency.

Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law” (2015) prohibits the holding of elections during martial law and the Electoral Code of Ukraine (2019) ordains suspension of all elections during such period. This is not an arbitrary political decision but a constitutionally viable solution aimed at ensuring stability in times of crisis. The law prevents governance from collapsing into uncertainty while the country is under extreme conditions.

As discussed elsewhere, conducting elections under the current conditions of war in Ukraine can undermine democratic principles and, therefore, is unconstitutional. Holding elections amid ongoing hostilities poses significant challenges to ensuring free and fair electoral processes, potentially leading to democratic erosion. In such volatile conditions, elections may not reflect the genuine will of the people, thereby compromising the legitimacy of the democratic system. Ukraine’s wartime conditions, thus, make elections both unconstitutional and unfeasible, with ongoing hostilities, mass displacement, security risks, and occupied territories undermining electoral integrity and legitimacy.

Though the last paragraph seems to be a bit of rationalization, Ukrainian law evidently encourages this "constitutionally viable solution." Further, knocking Zelenskyy or his nation for not adhering strictly to traditional democratic norms during wartime is a little rich coming from an appointee of President Donald Trump. 

Having encouraged the insurrection of January 6, 2021 to prevent a peaceful transition of power, the man who labeled the Democratic Party the "party of crime," Trump pardoned rioters who "violently assaulted police officers and those with long criminal records." Vice-President J.D. Vance has both defended the pardon of such criminals and denied the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The President who endorses an attempted coup at home so that he can remain in power blames Ukraine for starting the war with Russia and calls its leader a "dictator without elections." And no one in his Administration will concede that Vladimir Putin is himself a dictator.

I would prefer Ukraine hold elections because of the likelihood that, were Donald Trump still to be alive and kicking in autumn of 2028, he will try to remain in office by canceling the presidential election while possibly making a false analogy to Volodymyr Zelenskyy.. (Article 14 of the USA Constitution limits an individual from being elected more than twice. The document is silent on the number of terms or length of time a President can serve.)

But facts are facts, and the fact is that Ukraine was invaded by a country the current American President holds blameless. He has accused his counterpart of having been on the "gravy train" during the Biden Administration and says he "better move fast (or) he's not going to have a country left."  The mob boss masquerading as macho President has tried to shake down Zelenskyy, demanding ownership of 50% of Ukraine's mineral reserves because "I want it back."

Yet, a top representative of this Administration whines about "badmouthing Trump in public." Like President, like sycophant: always the victim.

 

Share |

Enemy Within

Well, this can't be good: 

It was not the first time that Donald J. Trump has referred to "the enemy within.when on October 13

“I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within,” Trump said. He added: “We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the big — and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

Trump has repeatedly invoked the phrase “enemy from within” in recent speeches. On Saturday, he used it to refer to Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a prominent Trump critic who oversaw the congressional investigation that led to Trump’s first impeachment. Schiff is now running for the Senate.

More recently, on October 20 Fox News' Howard

Kurtz asked Trump, “You talk about the enemy within, then America’s enemies outside, the enemy within is a pretty ominous phrase if you’re talking about other Americans. Who are you talking about?”

“I think that’s accurate,” Trump responded before taking a dig at Pelosi and Schiff.

“These are bad people. We have a lot of bad people,” Trump said. “But when you look at ‘Shifty Schiff’ and some of the others, yeah, they are to me, the enemy from within. I think Nancy Pelosi is an enemy from within.”

However, appearing on October 28 on CNN's State of the Union with Jake Tapper

Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance insisted that Donald Trump’s attacks on “the enemy within” were not directed at Democratic Party leaders but dissenting Americans he described as “far-left lunatics” poised to riot if the former president wins in November.

Grilled by CNN’s Jake Tapper on Trump’s use of the loaded phrase, Vance defended his ticket mate, saying the former president would not unleash the military on “Americans writ large.”

“He’s said publicly that he wants to use the military to go after the enemy within, which is the American people,” Tapper said in an interview that aired Sunday on “State of the Union"....

Yet according to Vance

He said that he wanted to use the military to go after far-left lunatics who are rioting, and … he also called them ‘the enemy within.’ He separately, in a totally different context, in a totally different conversation, said that Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff were threats to this country.

Well, no, Trump once singled out Adam Schiff as one of those enemies of the people and on another occasion argued "when you look at 'Shifty Schiff' and some of the others, yeah, they are to me, the enemy from within. I think Nancy Pelosi is an enemy from within."

However, this is not only Trump and the guy he once described as possibly "America's Hitler."  CNN noted also that Vance was

echoing a script other Republicans have stuck to when asked similar questions.

“I did not hear President Trump in that clip say he’s going to sic the military on Adam Schiff. That’s not what he’s saying,” the Louisiana Republican said. “You got two different clips in two different contexts.”

The week before, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, also speaking to Tapper, said Trump was not talking about political opponents.

I guess what I want to just make very clear is that it’s my belief that what former President Trump is talking about are the people that are coming over the border, that, in fact, are committing crimes, that are bringing drugs, that are trafficking humans and that are turning every state into a border state,” the Republican governor said.

There has been no known, credible threat from American leftists – many of whom have soured on Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris – relating to post-election violence or “riots.”

That was that nice Glenn Youngkin, a "moderate Republican" to much of the media, and who is rarely or ever considered "MAGA." It should be a warning to mainstream media that if Donald Trump is elected, he will move aggressively toward establishing a police state, and that major Republicans will not balk at his evisceration of the Constitution. The danger will come not only from a President Trump but also from his Republican Party, whose members will unhesitatingly line up behind him, because it is the Republican Party.

Share |